Monday, May 25, 2009

Political Correctness and Constituency Pandering Reach Another Level

















On this day I would not want to disparage any people's contribution to this country, but Obama really pandered today in his laying a wreath on the tomb of the unknown soldier by laying a wreath for those blacks who served for the Union. What about the half a million white soldiers that died for the result that blacks would be free? Blacks were not freed because of the EP, because had the south won, it would have been moot. Still, Obama's actions smack of catering to a constituency. May be I am looking too much into this, but when is he going to stop running for office (a problem many pols have today) and do what he was elected to be. On the other hand, may be he should run around the country catering to constituencies, as it might distract him from implementing his progressive and ultimately socialist agenda. In the end, this is no surprise. Obama would rather use emotions to create consensus as opposed to rational thought and politics in general have been fraught in excess with this since FDR and the man behind the curtain pulled the strings of the straw man. May be all of this will turn to be a bad dream like the Wizard of Oz. At least with Oz, good did eventually triumph over evil. In the real word, not so much. So Barry, what's next?

Thank you for reading this blog.

5 comments:

bint alshamsa said...

Is there any reason why he shouldn't lay a wreath for them? I'm really curious about what half a million white soldiers died for blacks to be free. When did this supposedly take place?

Do politicians ever stop catering to a constituency? I mean, that's why people are in office--to do what what the people want. This has nothing to do with running for office or the mentality that it takes to do it. This is simply another way of celebrating who we are. On St. Patrick's Day, we celebrate a certain group, but it doesn't mean we don't like other groups just as much. Laying a wreath for black Union soldiers isn't any different.

It's a little amusing how whenever people of color celebrate their accomplishments white Americans get all perturbed. It's not as if we don't have a plethora of events and holidays that cater to white people, is it?

The Right Guy said...

bint:
That incident is but one of many for many administrations, GOP and Dem. I am tired of presidents and other politicians putting their finger to the wind, leading through polling and using populist strategies to gain popularity and power. Enough. Whether it's Sotomayor or Meyers, it's all non-sense. For once I wish a president would lead from what they think, not what they think other will like. The thing is, if any of them would be honest, they'd probably never get in. While you may say it's nothing new, it has gotten very bad in the last 20-25 years. I thought Clinton was a master, and it got worse from there. Is there anyone that can do the job and not be running for office for 4 years? I hope at some point a majority get tired of it too.

The Pajama Underground said...

It's all about group identity politics. This is the stick in trade of the left. The are morally and intellectually bankrupt, so gestures like this are substituted for concrete ideas instead.

The Right Guy said...

It's the stick in the trade for both sides. They just pander to different identities. The left panders to minorities and the right panders to social conservatives. It's populist BS to cultivate, propagate and instigate constituencies.

Politicians realize that when people identify with a particular group, it makes them feel better and the people get a sense of power that they otherwise do not feel as individuals.

Looking at the efficacy of the left and right, I would say the left has been more successful, primarily because they offer tangible things to their constituencies.

The reason libertarians fail is that they are offering nothing tangible, as in some entitlement. The thing is, people are willing to give up freedoms and natural rights to get these tangible items from the government.

When you take a step back and look at the parties, their isn't a lot of difference and both will say anything to get your vote and in the end all they really are interested in is the power of the office.

Going back to the classical liberal philosophy: The advantage of demanding freedom is that there is nothing they can offer per se, other than upholding the law and creating laws that protect freedom. There is nothing tangible that can be used to bribe the people. It changes the balance of power. This takes some of the teeth out of politics. In my estimation, the downfall came when they passed the 16th amendment. Follow the money. At that point, they could bribe us with our own money.

Does this change whether or not Obama (or any other political hack in office) would place a wreath for black civil war veterans or nominate Sotomayor? No, he's in permanent election mode and it matters little to him anyway. In the end, Obama is about attaining and keeping power in the government, not the people. Lots of changes are coming down the road and it won't be a good thing. He wants to create a society that is dependent on government, an increasingly authoritarian government that will decide more and more how you live your life.

H├ęctor said...

Right Guy,
Please read An Economic Theory of Democracy by Anthony Downs. I think you'll like it very much.

You also might like:

Related Posts with Thumbnails